Sunday, 2 September 2012

Atos Healthcare and the Benefits of Union

During the Olympics, we
were treated to the delicious dichotomy of the world's largest mixed
sporting event being sponsored by a fizzy drink manufacturer and a
chain of fast food restaurants. Presumably, by associating themselves
with the games, both companies saw the opportunity to clean up their
reputations for promoting ill-health and obesity. Only time will tell
if their marketing money was well spent.

The Paralympics, on the
other hand, have raised irony to a whole new level as one of their
main sponsors is Atos, the giant French service company which has
been contracted by the UK government to reduce welfare costs by
removing benefits from millions of sick and disabled people. For most
of us, this may well turn out to be a degree of hypocrisy too far.

The Westminster
government has awarded Atos a contract worth £400 million under
which the company will “re-assess” the ability of sick and
disabled people to work. The government, of course, expects to recoup
much more than this amount in reduced benefit payments if Atos do
their job well. And, from Westminster's point of view, they've been
doing their job very well indeed.

Despite repeated
denials from ConDem ministers, whistle-blowers from inside the
business have been telling of targets for denying of benefits to the
needy. Employees who allow too many of their 'clients' to keep their
benefits are subjected to review and possible disciplinary action. It
seems clear that the intention of ministers is to reduce the benefit
budget by a fixed amount, rather than to ensure that those who need
the benefits actually receive them.

Bear in mind that this
is a policy being implemented by the Conservative-led coalition, with
the full approval of their LibDem partners. But it is also a policy
which was conceived and initiated by the previous Labour government.
It is difficult to see how any voting choice in a UK general election
could make any real difference to this policy, since all three main
UK parties are so much in favour of it. The die, it seems, is
permanently cast.

Can you imagine,
however, a government being elected to an independent Scottish
parliament with a mandate to follow a policy such as this? Is it even
conceivable that a majority, or even a plurality, of Scots would
countenance such an obscene demonstration of unfairness and greed –
such a betrayal of those in greatest need – such a vicious attack
on those least able to defend themselves?

If any single policy
area makes the case for Scottish independence, then surely this is
it. Continuation of the Union ensures the continuation of this
disgusting iniquity, while independence guarantees it's cessation.

The difference in
political philosophy on either side of the border could not be more
clearly demonstrated. And the opportunity for each of us to do
something about it is coming in just 2 short years.

Vote YES for Scotland's
independence in 2014 and say NO to the politics of greed and
injustice.